getClientsDistribution

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description's help. The description adds that results are aggregated by connection type and band, but says nothing about whether counts are real-time or cached, whether disconnected clients are included, or what the response shape looks like. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is a reasonable but not rich disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the core capability front-loaded and the enumerated bands immediately defining scope. The second sentence is lightly promotional ('at a glance') but still conveys intent, so little is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a simple read-only aggregate with a single optional parameter and no output schema, and the description states the dimensions of the aggregation, which is the main thing an agent needs. Nothing critical is missing, though a note on whether the metric is site-wide only would close the last gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the siteId property already explains the default-site fallback and points to listSites for discovery. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies: the schema does the work, the description neither helps nor hurts.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource (client count distribution) and enumerates the exact buckets returned (wired, 2.4GHz, 5GHz, 6GHz), so an agent knows precisely what data comes back. It stops short of distinguishing itself from near-neighbours such as getTrafficDistribution or getDashboardWifiSummary, which is the only thing separating it from a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'useful for understanding the network composition at a glance'. There is no explicit when-to-use condition, no when-not to use it, and no pointer to a sibling tool for related questions. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the selection criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.